Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Understanding the Bible Message-ID: Date: 9 Jun 91 18:37:26 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Lines: 103 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >In article cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: >+ >+So you read the Bible like a fundamentalist, thats fine. >+ This could be taken as being derogatory, it was not inteded as such, my apologies if it caused offense. >I also don't feel a great need to believe its tenants on human life >and the existence of a diety. However, if I went through various >portions of the text and picked out the 'good' (being defined by me >or those who agree with me) and left the bad (for those who disagree >with me) does that make me 'Christian'. I assume that you are asking a rhetorical question, but if you are not I would point out that whether a person is a Christian or not is not in any way dependant on their attitude to the Bible. In fact it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and not even be aware of the existence of the Bible. Just ask a missionary who has done pioneering work where the Bible has not been translated in the language of the people being reached. >I believe that if one >subscribes to the name one must take the Bible essentially as it >stands for better or worse. To do otherwise says I've invented a new >religion. As a non-beleiver you are entitled to your opinions and I respect them as such. If as a non-beleiver are trying to tell me as a beleiver how I must take the Bible, then I reject your opinions as not being applicable to me. This new thread arose out of a discussion about whether certain aspects of the Bible were based upon the culture of the time in which it was written and so were not *directly* applicable to all suitations for all time. I would answer yes, there are many things in the Bible which reflect the culture in which it was written and we should be deligent to study the culture and background of the writings to understand them better, and apply them to our lives better. I am opposed to taking New Testament teachings and turning them into laws with which to force people into submission. A cardinal teaching of the New Testament is that we should be lead by the Holy Spirit rather than submit ourselves to a collection of externally formulated laws. Far from being a new religion as you suggest, this is well within the mainstream of Christianity. Many Christians do have an order of authority which they ascribe to the various books of the Bible, many do this unconsiously though. The Hebrew Bible has a clear order of authority. It is 1. The Torah 2. The Prophets 3. The Writings. Since the Christian Bible has jumbled up this order it is hard to see. I partially understand my own ordering of authority and it runs something like this (this is not a rigid ordering). 1. Synoptic Gospels 2. The Torah 3. The Latter Prophets 4. New Testament Letters 5. The Former Prophets 6. The Writings 7. The Acts of the Apostles There are two books which I don't quite know what to do with, they are the Gospel of John and Revelations. For many Christians I know, their number one authority is (are?) the letters of Paul. While I do not agree, I think that we are both well within the mainstream of Christianity. >When I read passages which essentially state that the Diety has >commanded that all the inhabitants of a certain place be killed I do >not interpret this as 'an exploration of the nature of Godliness', I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Come now, lets be reasonable, I didn't say that. >take it to be just what it is, genocide. You may explain or >rationalize such commands away but it still remains that the OT had >a vengful diety. I suspect you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said, but in case you weren't... If you take a single passage and look at it in exclusion of all others you can find a passage that would tell you just about anything. What I was attempting to suggest is that the chosen people grew in their understanding of God as time progressed. Most of the genocidal activity occured early in the Israelite history, even before the rise of the monarchy. It would seem to me that they perceived their God in nationalistic terms and did not fully, maybe not even partially, understand Him as the one and only one God, Lord and creator of the Universe. As time progressed who they understood God to be certainly changed. Isaiahs' vision in the Temple was of God whose glory filled the whole earth. Their understanding of God changed a lot in the time of the exile. The tremendous clash of competeing theologies in the time of Jeremiah and Ezekial was primarily over their understanding of Gods' covenants, and hence His nature. [snip] > >John Clark -- ___ Bill Rea (o o) -------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w--- | Bill Rea, University of Canterbury, | E-Mail b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------